Why The RCC Is A Cult

[Walter]

Some of this may have already been said:

1. Bible teaches that offices of bishop and presbyter are the same(Titus 1: 5-7) Rebel is right. Catholic tradition says they are different.

2. Bible teaches all have sinned. (Heb. 4:15: ROM 3:10-12), but RCC says Mary was sinless.

3. Bible teaches Christ's sacrifice was once for all (Heb. 7:27, 9:28, 10:10). RCC tradition says priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at Mass.

4. Bible says not to bow to statues (Ex. 20:4-5). RCC tradition teaches some statues are fine.

5. The Bible says all Christians are saints and priests (Eph. 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) Rebel is right again. RCC says saints and priests are from special castes within the Church.

6. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man(1Tim. 2:5), but RCC has placed Mary as Co-mediator.

7. The Bible says Christians can and should know that they have eternal life(1 John 5:13), but RCC tradition says Christian's cannot and shouldn't know that.

If the bible is the inerrant word of God, why does RCC tradition, treat it as errant?

RCC has no leg to stand on, per scripture. The only argument they have is the authority of the RCC and tradition. Both of those account for nothing when placed against scripture.

Please explain how you have Enoch who was taken into heaven because he was sinless and yet the bible says ALL have sinned? Guess there are exceptions.

 

[McCree79]

Please explain how you have Enoch who was taken into heaven because he was sinless and yet the bible says ALL have sinned? Guess there are exceptions.

Enoch was sinless? Where does the Bible say that?

 

[lakeside]

Enoch had to be sinless to enter Heaven, because the Holy Bible tells us that nothing impure may enter into Heaven. { Rev.21:27 NAB }

KJV -{Rev.21:27 }" And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defefileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[McCree79]

Enoch had to be sinless to enter Heaven, because the Holy Bible tells us that nothing impure may enter into Heaven. { Rev.21:27 NAB }

KJV -{Rev.21:27 }" And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defefileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

So Elijah was sinless as well?
Enoch, Elijah and Mary all sinless? That is a huge contradiction to scripture. It also denies the need for Christ. The blood of Enoch would have sufficed for atonement. ....or Elijah or Mary. No need for Jesus. That is antichristian.
Humanity was cursed in the garden. Humanity was fallen, including these 3. That claim would mean these 3 saved themselves under their own power, under their own works by fulfilling the law.

Jesus declares of John the Baptist, "born of women none is greater than John". John doubted Jesus while in prison. So, if John is the greatest and he doubted....even if for just a moment.... How could those lesser than John be sinless?

No we could debate that doubt is not a sin....regardless, by Jesus statement. You would now have to place John among the sinless. That no makes 4 people who are sinless. Again, it removes the need for Christ. John was sacrificed for his belief in God.....if he died sinless....his blood was spilled. He would be a sinless lamb who was sacrificed. He would have fulfilled the law himself. Why would we need Jesus, we had John the Baptist? God simply have used John, Mary, Enoch or Elijah to fulfill the law.

To put 4 humans on the same level as Christ is antichristian.

 

[McCree79]

All Rev 21 does is prove Enoch's name was written in Heaven. No scripture supports he or anyone else other than Jesus was sinless.

 

[Zenas]

Some of this may have already been said:

1. Bible teaches that offices of bishop and presbyter are the same(Titus 1: 5-7) Rebel is right. Catholic tradition says they are different.

2. Bible teaches all have sinned. (Heb. 4:15: ROM 3:10-12), but RCC says Mary was sinless.

3. Bible teaches Christ's sacrifice was once for all (Heb. 7:27, 9:28, 10:10). RCC tradition says priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at Mass.

4. Bible says not to bow to statues (Ex. 20:4-5). RCC tradition teaches some statues are fine.

5. The Bible says all Christians are saints and priests (Eph. 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) Rebel is right again. RCC says saints and priests are from special castes within the Church.

6. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Mediator between God and man(1Tim. 2:5), but RCC has placed Mary as Co-mediator.

7. The Bible says Christians can and should know that they have eternal life(1 John 5:13), but RCC tradition says Christian's cannot and shouldn't know that.

If the bible is the inerrant word of God, why does RCC tradition, treat it as errant?

RCC has no leg to stand on, per scripture. The only argument they have is the authority of the RCC and tradition. Both of those account for nothing when placed against scripture.

The Bible doesn't teach that every single person has sinned. Romans 3:10-12,23 are not talking about individuals. They are comparing Jews and Gentiles. Jews have sinned; Gentiles have sinned. No people group is free from sin. However, this doesn't mean every single individual is guilty of sin.

 

[McCree79]

The Bible doesn't teach that every single person has sinned. Romans 3:10-12,23 are not talking about individuals. They are comparing Jews and Gentiles. Jews have sinned; Gentiles have sinned. No people group is free from sin. However, this doesn't mean every single individual is guilty of sin.

Psalms " no one does good, not even one"

Romans 7 we are all captive to the law of sin.
Ephesians 2 "by nature children of wrath"



Yes Romans 3 does compare gentiles to Jews.....and it says ALL have sinned and fallen shirt of the glory of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That verse of {1 Cor.4:6} is not as you believe. It means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul's proclamation of the Cross, which is the fulfillment of God's promises in the OT [ what is written ] Inflated with pride; literally "puffed up" by those who go beyond the only One and True Interpretation, as that one Interpretation used in selecting the correct Canonical Books found [ and accepted by all ] when compiling the Holy Bible [ NT ], a prophesy of the distant Reformation where mere men became gloated with pride and arrogance , filled with a sense of self- importance above that which is written by God. Not accepting the Fullness of the One True Gospel [ not thousands of conflicting interpretations found today within Protestantism ] through Jesus Christ as passed on down to His Apostles/Successors { Luke10:16 } in both Written form along with Apostolic { oral } Teaching { 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 }. The term is particularly Pauline.

Perfect exemplar of self-explanatory inventiveness! In ANTI-CHRIST ARROGANCE you fail in no respect or degree.

With this post you've earned yourself exemption from all indulgences and purgatory. Still here, on BaptistBoard unlike on <<Christianforums>> you're no hurt-in-his-pride <MSC> and won't get me <banned> ... <never> Llllll:tongue3::tongue3:.

...though you'd love to burn me on the stake to the glory of your satanic realm.

 

[Walter]

Perfect exemplar of self-explanatory inventiveness! In ANTI-CHRIST ARROGANCE you fail in no respect or degree.

With this post you've earned yourself exemption from all indulgences and purgatory. Still here, on BaptistBoard unlike on <<Christianforums>> you're no hurt-in-his-pride <MSC> and won't get me <banned> ... <never> Llllll:tongue3::tongue3:.

...though you'd love to burn me on the stake to the glory of your satanic realm.

Says the guy who claims that the only actual blood Jesus shed was in his tears in the Garden of Gethsemane. Says the guy who says that Jesus was sexually abused by the Roman guards.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Says the guy who claims that the only actual blood Jesus shed was in his tears in the Garden of Gethsemane. Says the guy who says that Jesus was sexually abused by the Roman guards.

Both are lies against me your <guy>. But God being my Witness, what do I need yours for? To despise for sooth.

 

[Walter]

Both are lies against me your <guy>. But God being my Witness, what do I need yours for? To despise for sooth.

No, Gerhard, you made the claims on another thread. Others such as PreachTony will remind you if you can't seem to remember. The thread was closed shortly after you made the blasphemous claims. Here is a post of PreachTony's on a different thread (he is referring to YOU, GE) so I'm not imagining things or 'lying'.

"I recently had a discussion in this here "Other Denominations" forum where I found someone who believed the atonement under Christ came not from the cross, but from Christ bleeding in the garden. His assertion was that Christ only bled in the garden. He claimed the Roman scourging and the crucifixion did not cause Christ to bled, because the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus bled during those things. It was certainly a take I had never encountered before, and it definitely reeked of "sacrificeless" or "bloodless" atonement."

The person he is referring to is YOU, GE and I suppose now you want to deny that you ever made the claim that Jesus did not actually bleed at the crucifixion or His scourging simply because the Bible never explicity says He did?? You claimed the Lord had disclose 'great and wonderful things' to you and that this was one of them.

Your claims of Jesus being sexually abused by the Roman guards was in the same thread.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No, Gerhard, you made the claims on another thread. Others such as PreachTony will remind you if you can't seem to remember. The thread was closed shortly after you made the blasphemous claims. Here is a post of PreachTony's on a different thread (he is referring to YOU, GE) so I'm not imagining things or 'lying'.

"I recently had a discussion in this here "Other Denominations" forum where I found someone who believed the atonement under Christ came not from the cross, but from Christ bleeding in the garden. His assertion was that Christ only bled in the garden. He claimed the Roman scourging and the crucifixion did not cause Christ to bled, because the Bible does not explicitly say Jesus bled during those things. It was certainly a take I had never encountered before, and it definitely reeked of "sacrificeless" or "bloodless" atonement."

The person he is referring to is YOU, GE and I suppose now you want to deny that you ever made the claim that Jesus did not actually bleed at the crucifixion or His scourging simply because the Bible never explicity says He did?? You claimed the Lord had disclose 'great and wonderful things' to you and that this was one of them.

Your claims of Jesus being sexually abused by the Roman guards was in the same thread.

I trust BaptistBoard will allow me to put things straight here.

I did nothing of the kind of thing I am accused of here.

First, about the <abuse> -issue.

LIKE with the VAIN ATTEMPTS of the crowds to draw Jesus' blood, I unambiguously STRESSED that they did NOT 'SUCCEED'. No one got what they DESIRED. JESUS IN HIS OMNIPOTENCE TRIUMPHED over them "IN IT" : in his PASSOVER-SUFFERING OF YAHWEH which was the TOTAL Suffering OF YAHWEH "EXCEEDING DEATH".

Now go on Walter with your false accusations. THE SAME SUFFERING JESUS MY GOD AND LORD IS MY WITNESS.

I will not further attempt the impossible, to persuade my accuser of his FALSENESS. So help me God.

 

[lakeside]

Gerhard, could you please elaborate more.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard, could you please elaborate more.

I have finished. Haven't I sworn, So help me God?

Don't try tempt me; it's useless.

 

[Melanie]

Well, despite being a cultist, I attended Mass as it is Holy Week , heard the Passion of Christ as recorded by Mark, confessed, and received Communion. The church statuary is covered at this time. Tomorrow, the gospel of Luke of the Passion will be read. Then from Thursday there is Tenebrae which is the reading of psalms etc.

This is central to my life and as a devotee to the cult of Christ I intend to attend as many of the devotions as possible. I hope you too have a beautiful and spiritually laden Easter!

 

[steaver]

Enoch had to be sinless to enter Heaven, because the Holy Bible tells us that nothing impure may enter into Heaven. { Rev.21:27 NAB }

KJV -{Rev.21:27 }" And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defefileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

(1) Enoch may have been taken to heaven, but he did not enter into the presence of God, the holy of holies. This was not possible until the atonement and glorification of Jesus Christ. (John 3) (John 7) (Hebrews 10)

(2) You are posting Rev 21:27 as a proof text for your understanding. However this text speaks of ALL who have their names written in the Lamb's book of life. This includes ALL that once defefileth, or worketh abominations, or have lied.

The ONLY way Enoch or anyone enters into the presence of God is by the blood of the Lamb in the fullness of time having been applied to their souls.

 

[Rebel]

Well, despite being a cultist, I attended Mass as it is Holy Week , heard the Passion of Christ as recorded by Mark, confessed, and received Communion. The church statuary is covered at this time. Tomorrow, the gospel of Luke of the Passion will be read. Then from Thursday there is Tenebrae which is the reading of psalms etc.

This is central to my life and as a devotee to the cult of Christ I intend to attend as many of the devotions as possible. I hope you too have a beautiful and spiritually laden Easter!

And a blessed Easter to you, too! He is risen!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A blessed <<Easter>>?

By whose <blessing>?

Cursed be that pagan idolatry!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..............
The ONLY way Enoch or anyone enters into the presence of God is by the blood of the Lamb in the fullness of time having been applied to their souls.

That is true. <<By the blood of the Lamb>> OF GOD which was in the LIFE of the Lamb.

Not like the life which was in the BLOOD of sacrifices. Which is <<Why the RCC is a cult>>> ...a cult of blood a cult for blood... the blood of the Son of God... and the blood of the saints of God.

 

[lakeside]

Gerhard, yes I also belong to the same cult as Briony- Gloriana as in Post#95.
I have a question; I ask this out of curiosity and not meant to be disingenuous, my question is ''why are all other so-called cults all KJV only adherents'' ? Because if you are calling the Catholic Church the %hore of Babylon wouldn't that imply that her offspring would adhere to her bible. Why do they follow the KJV Bibles ?